Tariffs are essentially a sales tax. And a sales tax — averaging maybe 15% — is going to reduce consumer purchasing power…and cut into sales and profits. That is, it will be downer.
Somewhere, someone else other than myself - someone with better financial “street creds”- will explain to me why all the prognosis for a 15% tariff hike always assume a concomitant consumer price hike. Why we can disregard the quasi-capitalist interference in their export markets with their own version of “the hidden hand” of regulatory barrier and VAT taxes? Why these same regimes will be fine with pricing themselves out of foreign market sales after simply adding that 15% to their product? Why their market manipulation maneuver would not call on them to reduce their VAT taxes on exports by a commensurate 15%, simply to retain market share.that buoys their own command economy? I suppose I can wait like everyone else to hear the explanation as to why the inflation experience here never fully reflected their worst fears.
You might be waiting a long time. You have touched on one main aspect to the "rest of the story" that Mr. Bonner purposefully omits from ALL of his Trump-bashing missives on the subject of Tariffs.
I know Bill NEVER deigns to stoop so low as to respond directly to one of his paying customers, but I'd LOVE to see a real source for this, his oft-repeated assertion. In the extensive research about all things tariff I have done over the last 8 months, I have not seen this "fact" even remotely repeated anywhere. Except from the keyboard of one Bill Bonner who frequently uses this statement to continue his feeble attempts at "getting" the Big Man while trying to convince the rest of us that Trump is the worst thing to ever happen to America. If there is hard data to back-up what appears to be a Bonner Tariff Fetish dream, let's see it. There sure is a TON of other evidence that shows totally different Rates of Disparity in our pre-Trump tariff scheme.
Oh well, we've all likely got better things to do. So just like the "media", the internet and my Aunt Betty - when a libtarde "elite" says something, it must be true.
I hope you're enjoying a beautiful early-Fall day wherever you are, and have a GREAT weekend, friends and foes alike......
Regardless of this “1% difference”, I find the inadequate treatment of the overall issue of international trade barriers to be somewhat frustrating. Particularly, from a source such as Bill. I would expect some historical context that would include regulatory barriers and VAT at the very least. The perspective that the 15% Trump imposed tariff levy turning into a 15% increase to consumers, to me, is ill-informed and overly simplistic.
That was exactly my thought. A tariff does not necessarily create a price increase thereby assuming it’s a tax increase. BB never gives Donald Trump ‘ANY’ benefit of the doubt.
Should tariffs drive up prices, and in the long term such is likely unavoidable, although not in a consistent, across-the-board way. In response to tariffs (tax), prices may go up, but rising prices by themselves are not inflation. We have become accustomed to the idea that increasing prices are, in and of themselves, inflation, because price increases so often accompany money creation, the cause of inflation. Inflation is an increase in the money supply larger than the value of the production value in the economy. Therefore, it is, as Milton Friedman said, always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon. Prices may increase, and no one likes to see it. Taxes are never a positive for anyone but government, but taxes are not inflationary. Money printing is, and over the last 50+ years, we've printed $37 trillion dollars more than we have produced. Are you surprised prices have risen? As my high school math teacher said, "Gentlemen, your equations must balance." Best always. PM
I think Bill needs to widen his gaze a bit and not blind himself by staring at Trump so much. Yes, tariffs are a sales tax. But guess what? Most European countries have a VAT (sales) tax of about that same amount. What if (taking the opposite view from Bill, the most charitable to Trump), Trump is trying to compensate for a horribly irresponsible Congress that refuses to balance the budget? The president cannot unilaterally raise taxes to raise revenue to try to fill the deficit gap, *except* when you do some mental and legal gymnastics and utilize some arcane old laws, and then you can affect tariff rates. I am sympathetic to Bessents' claim that the reserve currency status of the dollar is both a privelege *and* a problem, in that it gradually exports America's wealth overseas. I am also sympathetic to Trumps argument that every time something goes wrong in the world, the world expects the US to "do something", whether it's wars or disasters, and maybe they should pay something for that aid or protection.
I find "Big Man Bad" to be just as tedious as "Orange Man Bad".
That must be one heck of a tall iceberg. You see very clearly from atop it.
Unfortunately, Bill and those like him pine away for results that reflect your second list. So a VERY valid question would be: Do they cheer for the worst outcomes to affect America because they hate the Country or because the alternative would give Trump and his Policies success and vindication?
Based on their own words and actions, either answer proves what kind of people they really are, deep down inside......
Below Ed makes some excellent points. My take is I think at times ole BBB makes some points, then he peppers in his hatred for Trump causing me to doubt his initial analysis. That, and the fact that so far, these tariffs have had minimal impact on consumers, and finally as Ed point out, other countries may not call them tariffs but they do have VAT, essentially the same thing. Ole BBB never has anything to say about these democratic/socialist politicians charging essentially Americans the same bullshit.
Consequently, it just ends creditability to his own socialist/ democrat views.
It makes sense, Now that he has secured his millions, has purchased property all over the world and lives comfortably as perhaps the top .01%, what else is there for the old geezer but to pursue an area that he avoid during his money making days. BB has truly become creepy with his Machiavellian analysis.
If you have a fixed supply lets say, a million dollars, in the aggregate regardles of demand supply fundmentals in the real economy on net you have no inflation. Prices change relative to the money stock in circulation. Technically speaking. Taking it further if there's a 10% loss in goods due to business closures on net, you have no inflation, given there's no increase in the supply of the money stock in aggregate. And that there, is the dirty little secret of the statists.
So, if tariffs currently average 15% and the trade weighted $ is down approximately 10% year to date, then average imports cost 25% more. I wonder what happens to demand?
I’m familiar with Robert Kennedy Jr. I’ve been a member of CHD for a number of years. I’ve been to a CHD conference in Savannah a couple of years ago! I own and have read some of Bobby’s books, and Bobby is not saying the same things he said in the past! I know he’s under pressure from the Senate and probably from the Big Man himself! He is clearly not the only person I am listening to regarding mRNA vaccines!
I’m not here to dissuade anybody from any notions that they have! I just try to put information out there if someone chooses to view it! If you feel confident about any particular subject, then I am sure you will do as you see fit and I wish you well!
I hear and, oddly, agree with both of you (not that it matters.)
I think mRNA Vaxxes could be a major step forward for Humanity - but we are a LONG way from having done the Research and Collected/Analyzed/Tested/Verified enough data to allow the technology a carte blanche run throughout our Health Care system - much less have anything like a Mandate attached to them.....
PS - I'm pissed because I have seen where Pet Vaccines will all be mRNA based stating in 2026. It's way too early for that. I guess I'll have to do all I can to keep Tippers Marie and Penny Raine thriving without them....
Somewhere, someone else other than myself - someone with better financial “street creds”- will explain to me why all the prognosis for a 15% tariff hike always assume a concomitant consumer price hike. Why we can disregard the quasi-capitalist interference in their export markets with their own version of “the hidden hand” of regulatory barrier and VAT taxes? Why these same regimes will be fine with pricing themselves out of foreign market sales after simply adding that 15% to their product? Why their market manipulation maneuver would not call on them to reduce their VAT taxes on exports by a commensurate 15%, simply to retain market share.that buoys their own command economy? I suppose I can wait like everyone else to hear the explanation as to why the inflation experience here never fully reflected their worst fears.
You might be waiting a long time. You have touched on one main aspect to the "rest of the story" that Mr. Bonner purposefully omits from ALL of his Trump-bashing missives on the subject of Tariffs.
Speaking of which - today we get this:
"...𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘭𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘯 1% 𝘢𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘨𝘦 𝘥𝘪𝘧𝘧𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘣𝘦𝘵𝘸𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘸𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘱𝘢𝘺 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘧𝘧𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘱𝘢𝘪𝘥 𝘶𝘴."
I know Bill NEVER deigns to stoop so low as to respond directly to one of his paying customers, but I'd LOVE to see a real source for this, his oft-repeated assertion. In the extensive research about all things tariff I have done over the last 8 months, I have not seen this "fact" even remotely repeated anywhere. Except from the keyboard of one Bill Bonner who frequently uses this statement to continue his feeble attempts at "getting" the Big Man while trying to convince the rest of us that Trump is the worst thing to ever happen to America. If there is hard data to back-up what appears to be a Bonner Tariff Fetish dream, let's see it. There sure is a TON of other evidence that shows totally different Rates of Disparity in our pre-Trump tariff scheme.
Oh well, we've all likely got better things to do. So just like the "media", the internet and my Aunt Betty - when a libtarde "elite" says something, it must be true.
I hope you're enjoying a beautiful early-Fall day wherever you are, and have a GREAT weekend, friends and foes alike......
Regardless of this “1% difference”, I find the inadequate treatment of the overall issue of international trade barriers to be somewhat frustrating. Particularly, from a source such as Bill. I would expect some historical context that would include regulatory barriers and VAT at the very least. The perspective that the 15% Trump imposed tariff levy turning into a 15% increase to consumers, to me, is ill-informed and overly simplistic.
That was exactly my thought. A tariff does not necessarily create a price increase thereby assuming it’s a tax increase. BB never gives Donald Trump ‘ANY’ benefit of the doubt.
Should tariffs drive up prices, and in the long term such is likely unavoidable, although not in a consistent, across-the-board way. In response to tariffs (tax), prices may go up, but rising prices by themselves are not inflation. We have become accustomed to the idea that increasing prices are, in and of themselves, inflation, because price increases so often accompany money creation, the cause of inflation. Inflation is an increase in the money supply larger than the value of the production value in the economy. Therefore, it is, as Milton Friedman said, always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon. Prices may increase, and no one likes to see it. Taxes are never a positive for anyone but government, but taxes are not inflationary. Money printing is, and over the last 50+ years, we've printed $37 trillion dollars more than we have produced. Are you surprised prices have risen? As my high school math teacher said, "Gentlemen, your equations must balance." Best always. PM
I think Bill needs to widen his gaze a bit and not blind himself by staring at Trump so much. Yes, tariffs are a sales tax. But guess what? Most European countries have a VAT (sales) tax of about that same amount. What if (taking the opposite view from Bill, the most charitable to Trump), Trump is trying to compensate for a horribly irresponsible Congress that refuses to balance the budget? The president cannot unilaterally raise taxes to raise revenue to try to fill the deficit gap, *except* when you do some mental and legal gymnastics and utilize some arcane old laws, and then you can affect tariff rates. I am sympathetic to Bessents' claim that the reserve currency status of the dollar is both a privelege *and* a problem, in that it gradually exports America's wealth overseas. I am also sympathetic to Trumps argument that every time something goes wrong in the world, the world expects the US to "do something", whether it's wars or disasters, and maybe they should pay something for that aid or protection.
I find "Big Man Bad" to be just as tedious as "Orange Man Bad".
Capex, deregulation, reduced taxation, onshoring, tariff revenue
vs
unemployment, inflation, tariff increases and deficit spending.
Not so sure doom and gloom is absolute.
Your move...
That must be one heck of a tall iceberg. You see very clearly from atop it.
Unfortunately, Bill and those like him pine away for results that reflect your second list. So a VERY valid question would be: Do they cheer for the worst outcomes to affect America because they hate the Country or because the alternative would give Trump and his Policies success and vindication?
Based on their own words and actions, either answer proves what kind of people they really are, deep down inside......
Trump is covfefe for America.
Since most have no idea what that word was supposed to mean.
I think it is quite the perfect analogous definition.
Below Ed makes some excellent points. My take is I think at times ole BBB makes some points, then he peppers in his hatred for Trump causing me to doubt his initial analysis. That, and the fact that so far, these tariffs have had minimal impact on consumers, and finally as Ed point out, other countries may not call them tariffs but they do have VAT, essentially the same thing. Ole BBB never has anything to say about these democratic/socialist politicians charging essentially Americans the same bullshit.
Consequently, it just ends creditability to his own socialist/ democrat views.
It makes sense, Now that he has secured his millions, has purchased property all over the world and lives comfortably as perhaps the top .01%, what else is there for the old geezer but to pursue an area that he avoid during his money making days. BB has truly become creepy with his Machiavellian analysis.
If you have a fixed supply lets say, a million dollars, in the aggregate regardles of demand supply fundmentals in the real economy on net you have no inflation. Prices change relative to the money stock in circulation. Technically speaking. Taking it further if there's a 10% loss in goods due to business closures on net, you have no inflation, given there's no increase in the supply of the money stock in aggregate. And that there, is the dirty little secret of the statists.
So, if tariffs currently average 15% and the trade weighted $ is down approximately 10% year to date, then average imports cost 25% more. I wonder what happens to demand?
The U.S. exposure to imports is half the global average.
Tariff's impact other nations more.
In 2023, imports accounted for approximately 14% of the U.S. gross domestic product (GDP).
The global average import percentage of GDP is approximately 29% as of 2023.
Totally different subject!
https://x.com/zeee_media/status/1963760022032351681?s=01
Are they actually trying to slowdown on mRNA vaccines or are they just shuffling money around or coming up with something worse?
https://rumble.com/v6y65cg-more-funding-for-bill-gates-ft.-dr.-henry-ealy-daily-pulse-ep-97.html
Kennedy told us mRNA vaccines are obviously not properly suited for Covid protection; however the mRNA shows promise targeting other diseases.
Then you should be all set if you want to take one that appeals to you!
...if I have a terminal disease, I would seriously consider it.
Wouldn't you?
Very unlikely!
I’m familiar with Robert Kennedy Jr. I’ve been a member of CHD for a number of years. I’ve been to a CHD conference in Savannah a couple of years ago! I own and have read some of Bobby’s books, and Bobby is not saying the same things he said in the past! I know he’s under pressure from the Senate and probably from the Big Man himself! He is clearly not the only person I am listening to regarding mRNA vaccines!
I’m not here to dissuade anybody from any notions that they have! I just try to put information out there if someone chooses to view it! If you feel confident about any particular subject, then I am sure you will do as you see fit and I wish you well!
I hear and, oddly, agree with both of you (not that it matters.)
I think mRNA Vaxxes could be a major step forward for Humanity - but we are a LONG way from having done the Research and Collected/Analyzed/Tested/Verified enough data to allow the technology a carte blanche run throughout our Health Care system - much less have anything like a Mandate attached to them.....
PS - I'm pissed because I have seen where Pet Vaccines will all be mRNA based stating in 2026. It's way too early for that. I guess I'll have to do all I can to keep Tippers Marie and Penny Raine thriving without them....